You make some very good points. I think there is a big difference though in the business side of television or cultural influences between the UK and the US.
The BBC has a monopoly on television in the UK. Yes, there are various subsidiaries of BBC and other companies but in general, the lack of competition means that they aren't fighting quite so hard for money. Also different is that UK viewers pay a television license yearly in order to receive any content. This "fee" is actually more of a tax and there isn't a lot of choice about paying it. The steady stream of income likely allows a show to take time to gain traction and allows for some experimentation.
In contrast, for decades the US operated "free" television to American households and earned revenue through advertising. The competition of earning that advertising was based on viewership which means they concentrated more on quantity of viewers; this would have led to using formulas that were proven to bring in those viewers (and therefor the advertising dollars). Even with cable, US viewers have a choice about paying for it or not.
These differences in business models obviously make a huge impact on the type of shows being shown. Particularly in more recent years as the number of markets increases, the US gives less and less time to letting shows establish themselves. We won't get into the black hole of how many quality shows the US has put out but because they weren't immediate hits, they were cancelled. The UK has a little more time to build up an audience because it isn't quite so dependent upon those ratings. This is where the shorter seasons come into play too; because a show is only meant to have a few episodes per season, the entire season can play out without worry of having their season 'reduced' which is basically a death knell for American shows regardless of quality.
The BBC catered to general populace preferences from the beginning (much like our alphabet networks). It was only after creation of BBC2 that you began to see shows that catered to a minority audience- this is the channel that introduced Monty Pythons Flying Circus and Dr. Who. We see those as classics today but originally they were niche programs. You see the same effect in American television.
Another thing that you missed is that we aren't exposed to ALL television from the UK. We see the most popular and most quality shows. The BBC has throwaway crap television just like the US does. The UK loves its soap operas but how many people have even heard of Emmerdale or watched Coronation Street or Eastenders? There are a huge number of reality shows that the US has made but originated in the UK (the Chase, X Factor, Wife Swap, Dancing with the Stars, Pop Idol/American Idol, I'm a Celebrity.. Get Me Out of Here!, etc). Just because we have our own version of a show doesn't mean we didn't borrow the idea from somewhere else. At the same time, American shows (or their British remakes) have become popular overseas; only our best and most popular end up being seen. I have heard non-Americans talk about the quality of US tv for just that reason- they only see our best. It is hard to say that the BBC has better quality of tv shows when we are only comparing to a small sample of shows gathered from a large range of time periods and comparing it to the entire range of shows being shown in the US.
There is also a huge cultural difference. Culturally the BBC, which originated through radio, went more for an ability to relate and entertain and teach. The US television industry derived more out of Hollywood and its fantasy which included idealized looks in people, fashion, and sets. Even now you can see the American public throwing fits when an actor or actress isn't as beautiful as they want while the Brits can get in a tizzy if an actor is too perfect to be realistic. There are also differences in humor. When the UK or US remakes a show from the other country, it doesn't always translate even when used shot for shot. I loved the British show Coupling but hated the US version despite the pilots being nearly identical - ditto for Broadchurch/Gracepoint. I think some shows just work better coming from a particular culture. Perhaps it is the different styles of production and acting that make a difference in that or maybe it is because there are differences in how each culture behaves so that it is more believable coming from one over another.
Americans were raised on long seasons and the Brits were raised on short seasons. Over the years that has had major impact on how shows were written and a result on how business is done. The US wants to strike while its hot and then milk it for all its worth. I think it is why some shows start off with such quality and then fizzle out fast, or worse, drag on for years. The UK on the other hand has the shorter seasons and usually only come back when the show has a quality script and the actors are ready. Absolutely Fabulous had 6 seasons spread out over 10 years, during which the main actors were able to try other things.
The difference in number of episodes per season maybe didn't make as much difference through the mid-90s when American shows were usually self-contained. But the late 80s had some shows relying more heavily on multi-episode storylines which evolved into season long arcs (late 90s and early 00s) and on into today's series long show lore. Self-contained episodes are probably easier to write than trying to appropriately space out a season or series long arc. There is a very fine balance between giving viewers enough information to keep them intrigued and still drawing it out over the course of season or series. Lately you have seen a change in television that it is dividing a season in halves for these arcs or shortening the season altogether. The BBC, in contrast, has used arcs for decades and learned these lessons long ago.
reply
share